Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
a taliban terrorist in california, pay raise. no, freeze for three years. over the last five years one i.c.e. agent killed, one secret service agent killed, three a.t.f. agents killed, one d.e.a. agent killed, two u.s. marshals killed, air traffic controller to put the safety for my family and your family and our constituents as they fly through the sky, the n.i.h. my family has been devastated my cancer. my father died at cancer. my mother died of cancer and it's impacted on my family. dr. collins, who mapped the human genome system that will save many of you and your lives and your sons and daughters because of basically following that system, working on liver cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, which my mom died off. dr. collins and his team will have been frozen for three years. nasa, we just went through the 10th anniversary of the challenger explosion. those astronauts that sit on that rocket, those and now in the future, if you have a nasa facility in your district and they sit on that rocket to go up, they froze for three years. firefighters out in the west wh
are more and more effective in powering afghan communities to defend against taliban intimidation and violence. plans are being developed to increase the authorized size of the alp program from 30,000 to 45,000. the next centcom cmander will also play an important role in shaping our enduring partnership with afghanistan after 2014. the partnership that i fully support. ike m. concerned however by the plants to reduce the afghan national security forces by a third starting in 2015. 352,000 to 230,000 by 2017. i believe that any future reductions in the size of the afghan forces should be based on security conditions in afghanistan at that time and this afghan security forces make and providing for their country security, we should reassure them that we will continue to support these efforts by deciding that as we withdraw our forces that the won't get drawdo and afghan forces. progress in afghanistan remains fragile and significant challenges to afghanistan's long-term stability remain. among the greatest threat to its stability are the safe havens for afghan insurgents across the
afghan force would help to hedge against any future taliban mischief. you can reasonably expect that an enemy that has been that determined, that agile, will very soon try to test the afghan security forces. that size of a force provides additional capability to allow the political process is too mature a bit. because of that, it seems a larger force would be a benefit. >> thank you. just one question for you, general rodriguez. this has to do with an extremist force that is desirable and other contingency-response forces that would be useful to put the africomm commander in a position to respond to benghazi. if you have not been asked that question, can you tell us whether you would look for ways to find the greater capability to provide contingency response forces beyond what they currently are and were in the case of the benghazi matter? >> yes, sir, i would. i will report back to the committee on that. they have made significant improvements and we have to continue to do that. >> thank you both. we look forward to your confirmation. i want to thank the senator for taking ove
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
of the president. i support him. we cannot change the equation at this point in time. the taliban have been determined to relentlessly attacked the afghan government. we have to not pull out and make sure we focus on a counterterrorism strategy compared to the surge strategy, which did not accomplish its goal. host: another word that was not mentioned was the use of drones in the confirmation hearing. guest: this is a controversial subject. i fall on the side of supporting our drone program relentlessly sorting our drone program to protect our troops and to prevent the united states from being harmed by terrorists. when al qaeda operatives were taken out by drones >>> in afghanistan and yemen -- by drone strikes in afghanistan and elsewhere, i commended the president for his counterterrorism policy. it has protected the homeland as best as any weapon we could have. it has been an effective way of putting al qaeda on the defense and keeping them on the run. the president deserves congratulations for being relentlessly consistent and persistent in his drone program. does that mean it has been
. but the public report came out on september 28. and in that report it said that local taliban was working with war lords to provide guards and weapons for use in the contract. it came out they were failing to adequately investigate the forwards' previous employment which resulted in hiring individuals who had been fired for sharing sensitive information, security information work taliban war lords. failure to appropriately vet guards, some of whom, according to u.s. intelligence reports, may have been involved in anti-american activities. now all of that information was out in the classified way several weeks before september 10, excuse me, september 28, an was out in public september 28.
out secret effort to persuade the taliban to expel bin laden. as we know, bin laden was not expelled. three months later, his wrath was unleashed with an attack on our embassies. did you advise director tenant against this operation? and if so, why? >> i had a conversation with george and that at the time. every single cia manager, george tennant as deputy director of operations at the time, and other individuals at the counter-terrorism center argued against that operation as well because it was not well grounded in intelligence, and its chances of success were minimal. and it was likely that other individuals would be killed. when i was involved in those discussions, i provided the director and others my professional advice about whether i thought that operation should go forward. i also was engaged in discussion with the saudi government at the time. and i encouraged certain action to be taken to put pressure on the taliban as well as bin laden. >> i take it that your answer to my question is that you did advise in favor of the cancellation of that operation. >> based on what i ha
. a larger force, afghan force would help to hedge against any future taliban mischief and we expect y could reasonably expect that an enemy that's been that determined, that agile, will very soon after retranslation try to test the afghan security forces. further, that provides the process is to mature a bit, so i think because of that, it seems to me the larger force is a benefit. >> generalrodriguez, this has to do in extremis force that is desirable another contingency response force is would be useful to put the african commander and a position to contingencies such as we saw it in benghazi. if you've not been asked that question, tell us what they would look for ways to find greater capability to provide forces beyond what they currently are and where in the case of the benghazi matter. >> yes, senator senator i would end if confirmed, that will be one of the top priorities i have and will report to the committee and dave made significant improvements that we have to continue to do that. >> thank you, both. i want to thank senator king. it's very much appreciated. >> thank you, sir. [i
and defeated the taliban on our behalf not the mean he of our enemy, but these are radical islamic jihadists who want a cal fate -- caliphate in which the united states is sub jew dated to a religious -- subjugated to a religious ruler and they are willing to use violence if necessary, although the muslim brotherhood now seems to indicate that here in america they have made so much progress in infiltrating and getting positions of power in our government, our state department, in our homeland security department, in our justice department, at the white house directly, and direct lines to the president, they have made so much progress in moving toward that goal of a caliphate here in the united states under shari'a law, not under the constitution, that they are thinking maybe violence is not the way forward in america to achieve their goal of making this a shari'a compliant caliphate. but the muslim brotherhood around the world believes many places violence is the way forward in those areas. but we've got to understand who we are facing and what they want to do. and secretary clinton, unfortu
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)